Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• consensusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the multi-round discussion process, the role of the five advisors, the optional tool-request mechanism, and the return of the final consensus with discussion history. It also includes the important instruction about providing full source code when code artifacts are involved, which is unusual but useful context. Some internal behaviors (e.g., failure modes) are not covered, so it stops short of a 5.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is lengthy and contains redundancy: 'Key features' and 'The system will' sections overlap, and 'Example usage scenarios' reiterates the 'When to use' list. Some sentences, like the advisor 'core principles,' are non-actionable and add length without substance. However, the opening sentence is a strong concise summary, and the structure with clear headings helps navigation.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description provides a fairly complete picture. It covers the input parameters, the step-by-step system process (from initial presentation to final consensus), the tool-request format, and the return of discussion history. It does not specify the exact output schema, but it explicitly states the tool returns 'final consensus solution with complete discussion history,' which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions, and the description's 'Parameters explained' section mostly repeats that information. It adds minimal value by noting that maxRounds and consensusThreshold are configured via environment variables, but it does not provide default values or further clarify the expected input format beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'facilitates structured discussion and debate among general-purpose AI advisors to reach optimal solutions.' It also enumerates the five advisors by name, giving a precise scope of what the tool does.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  A dedicated 'When to use this tool' section provides a clear list of appropriate scenarios, such as 'Any complex problem that would benefit from multiple perspectives' and 'Decisions requiring thorough analysis.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, likely because no sibling tools exist.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.